Gun Control

It needs to be kept in mind that the rate of death per 100 varies wildly depending on where you are. North Dakota, for example, can go an entire year without a murder by firearm. Chicago, OTOH, can seemingly barely go an hour, on average, without one.So, if people want to manage their risk of death by homicide, where they live has a much greater impact on their risk than how many firearms are in the home.

Children getting access to guns is bad. It happens a lot (99.9% of the time not ending in a death). There are simple steps to prevent it. Trigger locks are not the end solution. But there *are* simple things people should know, like, "your kids know you hide your loaded revolver in your underwear droor in the bedroom".

Children getting access to guns is bad. It happens a lot (99.9% of the time not ending in a death). There are simple steps to prevent it. Trigger locks are not the end solution. But there *are* simple things people should know, like, "your kids know you hide your loaded revolver in your underwear droor in the bedroom".

Abstinance-only, is, of course, a flawed strategy.

And abstinence-only is an utterly meaningless comparison when applied to gun ownership for reasons we already covered.

And abstinence-only is an utterly meaningless comparison when applied to gun ownership for reasons we already covered.

Says who? Yeah, it's not the same thing. But it's not like an abstinance only strategy works for gun safety, either. You know those people who do stupid things and cause accidents with guns? Lots of overlap with the people who will completely ignore your gun-abstinance strategy.

And abstinence-only is an utterly meaningless comparison when applied to gun ownership for reasons we already covered.

Says who? Yeah, it's not the same thing. But it's not like an abstinance only strategy works for gun safety, either. You know those people who do stupid things and cause accidents with guns? Lots of overlap with the people who will completely ignore your gun-abstinance strategy.

? We're talking about accidents with children and guns. How is it not effective just to not have a gun in your house? Is there any other safety strategy that could prove more effective than not having a gun in the house? Given the correlations, it doesn't appear so.

This is completely different than sex education, for all the reasons that have already been hashed out.

And abstinence-only is an utterly meaningless comparison when applied to gun ownership for reasons we already covered.

Says who? Yeah, it's not the same thing. But it's not like an abstinance only strategy works for gun safety, either. You know those people who do stupid things and cause accidents with guns? Lots of overlap with the people who will completely ignore your gun-abstinance strategy.

As has been already mentioned--abstinence education is a terrible analogy because everyone automatically possesses the means to have unsafe sex. The same can not be said for gun safety--furthermore, teenagers are rarely overcome with hormonal gun-ownership urges.

And abstinence-only is an utterly meaningless comparison when applied to gun ownership for reasons we already covered.

Says who? Yeah, it's not the same thing. But it's not like an abstinance only strategy works for gun safety, either. You know those people who do stupid things and cause accidents with guns? Lots of overlap with the people who will completely ignore your gun-abstinance strategy.

? We're talking about accidents with children and guns. How is it not effective just to not have a gun in your house? Is there any other safety strategy that could prove more effective than not having a gun in the house? Given the correlations, it doesn't appear so.

This is completely different than sex education, for all the reasons that have already been hashed out.

Just like not having a computer in the house is the number 1 way to prevent your kid from being targeted by an online predator.

Just like not having a dog is in the house is the number 1 way to prevent your kid from being bitten by a dog.

Just like not having a sword in the house is the number 1 way to prevent your kid from getting hurt by a sword.

Just like not having a swing in your backyard is the number 1 way to prevent your kid from getting hurt on a swing.

Just like not having fireworks ever at your house is the number 1 way to prevent your kid from getting hurt by fireworks.

Just like not buying your kid or letting them have a bike is the number 1 way to prevent them from getting hurt on a bike.

However growing up we had all of those things at different points in time, and I'm glad my parents didn't decide that the way to keep me safe was to get rid of everything that could possibly cause me harm.

Add on: What it comes down to is that there are hundreds of things in somebodies house that could harm a child if the kids gets into them and uses them wrongly or at all. Parents need to decide if the trade off of having the item is worth the incredibly slim chance that their kid could get into it and what additional measures they need to take. Kids can choke on board game pieces for that matter, and telling parents get rid of the board games before they kill your child!!! is probably not as effective as saying "make sure you put the boards games up where you kid can't reach them" when they are in the stage where they put everything in their mouths.

And abstinence-only is an utterly meaningless comparison when applied to gun ownership for reasons we already covered.

Says who? Yeah, it's not the same thing. But it's not like an abstinance only strategy works for gun safety, either. You know those people who do stupid things and cause accidents with guns? Lots of overlap with the people who will completely ignore your gun-abstinance strategy.

? We're talking about accidents with children and guns. How is it not effective just to not have a gun in your house? Is there any other safety strategy that could prove more effective than not having a gun in the house? Given the correlations, it doesn't appear so.

This is completely different than sex education, for all the reasons that have already been hashed out.

Just like not having a computer in the house is the number 1 way to prevent your kid from being targeted by an online predator.

Just like not having a dog is in the house is the number 1 way to prevent your kid from being bitten by a dog.

Just like not having a sword in the house is the number 1 way to prevent your kid from getting hurt by a sword.

Just like not having a swing in your backyard is the number 1 way to prevent your kid from getting hurt on a swing.

Just like not having fireworks ever at your house is the number 1 way to prevent your kid from getting hurt by fireworks.

Just like not buying your kid or letting them have a bike is the number 1 way to prevent them from getting hurt on a bike.

However growing up we had all of those things at different points in time, and I'm glad my parents didn't decide that the way to keep me safe was to get rid of everything that could possibly cause me harm.

Add on: What it comes down to is that there are hundreds of things in somebodies house that could harm a child if the kids gets into them and uses them wrongly or at all. Parents need to decide if the trade off of having the item is worth the incredibly slim chance that their kid could get into it and what additional measures they need to take. Kids can choke on board game pieces for that matter, and telling parents get rid of the board games before they kill your child!!! is probably not as effective as saying "make sure you put the boards games up where you kid can't reach them" when they are in the stage where they put everything in their mouths.

Um, yeah, you haven't said anything that either contradicts what I said or is even controversial. People need to decide whether the trade off for not having a gun in the house is worth the elimination of the risk of accidental handgun injury and/or death.

This is a completely different argument than 'abstinence only' sex education which has been demonstrated to be _less effective_ than other methods of prevention.

Some people don't have pools because of the risk, some people don't have dogs because of the risk, some people don't have guns because of the risk. The mere fact that you scoff at these people doesn't mean that their choice didn't decrease a risk, it just means that you don't agree with the tradeoff.

So what? There's a nigh infinite amount of X items and activities that some people think are too risky and others don't. Trying to claim some sort of superiority because your level or risk tolerance for you or your children is higher than some other random person seems a bit silly, especially when there are many people who don't see any net positive of a gun in the house _regardless_ of the increased risk to the child. This is, of course, a lot harder to argue when it comes to things like computers.

But if you want to get into numbers, dog bite fatalities are even lower than accidental firearms fatalities. And I'll bet there's a lot more interaction between kids and dogs than kids and guns.

I chopped it out because I figure anybody who needs to can just go and look at what we've been talking about, and it was getting overly long.

Couple of points...

1. I'm not sure why you keep hammering 'abstinence only' counters when you are replying to me as I don't believe I ever made that arguement. It seems sort of random.

2. I still find it silly that any organization decided to post a message that basically states if you don't have X around it can't harm you. I would find it just as silly if the AMA came out with a message that said the number one way to never become an alcoholic is by never having a drink. It's silly, like saying those who don't fly don't suffer from dying in plane crashes. While all true, I don't think it really informs people of anything that they couldn't have figured out on their own.

3. Considering the very small number it still feels to me like a case of people being worried about lightening strikes but not about car crashes.

Even if we were to accept "not having a gun in the house" as an option, it still isn't a complete solution. You can't control whether your child will find a gun at a friend's house, or whether they'll stumble upon a gun that was dumped by a fleeing criminal in the bushes near a playground, or what have you. So the Eddie Eagle "STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult." rule is still a good one to teach.

I chopped it out because I figure anybody who needs to can just go and look at what we've been talking about, and it was getting overly long.

Couple of points...

1. I'm not sure why you keep hammering 'abstinence only' counters when you are replying to me as I don't believe I ever made that arguement. It seems sort of random.

The argument has been made, and you responded directly to a post that was engaging in that particular discussion. If you agree the comparison is random and ridiculous, then there's not much more to say.

Quote:

2. I still find it silly that any organization decided to post a message that basically states if you don't have X around it can't harm you. I would find it just as silly if the AMA came out with a message that said the number one way to never become an alcoholic is by never having a drink. It's silly, like saying those who don't fly don't suffer from dying in plane crashes. While all true, I don't think it really informs people of anything that they couldn't have figured out on their own.

You would be surprised at what people can and can't figure out for themselves. Even though accidental gun deaths aren't all that high compared to other higher risk activities, they still factor within the top-10 accidental deaths for children.

Someone who might not have thought twice about children and handgun safety might actually reconsider if they discuss the issue with their pediatrician. And, even if they still wish to keep a gun in the house because they think the benefits outweigh the costs, they might be persuaded to use better security.

Quote:

3. Considering the very small number it still feels to me like a case of people being worried about lightening strikes but not about car crashes.

? That's kind of like saying, why worry about regulating the food industry, just spend all your money on car accident prevention since the number of people who die from food poisoning is insignificant compared to auto accidents.

Our society is more than capable of addressing multiple issues, and allocating resources to reduce health risks in more areas than just the leading causes of death. Don't see why this should be controversial.

Even if we were to accept "not having a gun in the house" as an option, it still isn't a complete solution. You can't control whether your child will find a gun at a friend's house, or whether they'll stumble upon a gun that was dumped by a fleeing criminal in the bushes near a playground, or what have you. So the Eddie Eagle "STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult." rule is still a good one to teach.

Naturally. Nobody was suggesting that there's only one acceptable solution. However, statistics tend to correlate most strongly between having a gun, especially handgun, in the house and accidental child fatalities. The situations you describe would be even less of a risk than the already small risk of having a gun in the first place. Therefore, mitigating that additional 'second-order' risk through education, while not a bad idea, is not going to have as much of an actual impact on the death stats as not having a gun in the house.

And, even if they still wish to keep a gun in the house because they think the benefits outweigh the costs, they might be persuaded to use better security.

But that's just it. You have completely glossed over the point that "better security" is not what appears to be being taught. So a false sense of security is what is being conveyed. Do you agree that this is as bad if not worse than saying nothing at all?

And, even if they still wish to keep a gun in the house because they think the benefits outweigh the costs, they might be persuaded to use better security.

But that's just it. You have completely glossed over the point that "better security" is not what appears to be being taught. So a false sense of security is what is being conveyed. Do you agree that this is as bad if not worse than saying nothing at all?

I stopped participating in this tangent because arguing that doctors are essentially going to give advice found at the bottom of a cereal box, and thus presents a threat that must be prevented by law, is barely worth acknowledging. Since you're still clinging to this fear, do you have an actual example of doctors teaching bad security?

And, even if they still wish to keep a gun in the house because they think the benefits outweigh the costs, they might be persuaded to use better security.

But that's just it. You have completely glossed over the point that "better security" is not what appears to be being taught. So a false sense of security is what is being conveyed. Do you agree that this is as bad if not worse than saying nothing at all?

It _may_ be. So far, all I have is your assertion that this is true along with some anecdotes about how certain trigger locks can be bypassed. If you can show me statistics that demonstrate higher accident rates with houses that have crappy trigger locks, I could be convinced.

I have seen statistics that show trigger locks decrease accident rates, but of course the data doesn't distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' locks.

In any case, that doesn't get away from the point that doctors can't be experts on everything. They must rely on outside voices to help them if they want to talk about things like toxins, electrical safety, pool safety, and gun safety.

If you claim the material they are presenting is 'worse than doing nothing'. First, show this is true with numbers. Second, point the blame at agencies who should be educating doctors better, and demanding better equipment from the manufacturers. This happens with things like cribs, strollers, and car seats all of the time. Why should manufacturers of gun safety supplies be treated differently?

And abstinence-only is an utterly meaningless comparison when applied to gun ownership for reasons we already covered.

Says who? Yeah, it's not the same thing. But it's not like an abstinance only strategy works for gun safety, either. You know those people who do stupid things and cause accidents with guns? Lots of overlap with the people who will completely ignore your gun-abstinance strategy.

As has been already mentioned--abstinence education is a terrible analogy because everyone automatically possesses the means to have unsafe sex. The same can not be said for gun safety--furthermore, teenagers are rarely overcome with hormonal gun-ownership urges.

Let me clarify...

*Actually* not having a gun in your house is part of an acceptable strategy.

Telling people "just don't have a gun in your house" and leaving it at that is akin to abstinance-only sex ed. and is not an intelligent strategy.

...and I know many people don't believe this, but having a gun also tends to correlate with believing you need a gun.

That's a tautism... after all, if you don't think you need one for something, why would you have it? Family heirloom display? I assume you're meaning for self defense (not that that changes the fact that it's a tautism) but there are plenty of other reasons to have a firearm in your home... hunting, target shooting, etc.

I stopped participating in this tangent because arguing that doctors are essentially going to give advice found at the bottom of a cereal box, and thus presents a threat that must be prevented by law, is barely worth acknowledging. Since you're still clinging to this fear, do you have an actual example of doctors teaching bad security?

It's not fear. It is completely rational to expect that doctors are not experts on the subject. Therefore, they are going to rely on others to supplement their knowledge.

So let's turn to our handy friends on the Internet. I'm pretending to be an ignorant pediatrician and do a Google for Gun Safety. I ignored the first link since it was the NRA. I ignored Wikipedia because the 3rd link looked better - KidsHealth.org. Scanning the article it tells me to lock up my guns. But doesn't bother to tell how. So I Google "lock up guns." A bunch of worthless news articles. The first one of relevance is a Harvard link to a PDF put out by a partnership that includes the Indianapolis Police Department and the Marion County Board of Health. On that flyer they show to put a f-ing trigger lock on a Glock semi-auto. That right there is dead wrong. Trigger locks are not designed to work on the sort trigger clearance of a semi-auto. (Note: My Glock 19 came with a cable lock which is recommended for anything with a magazine.)

So yeah, there is at least some anecdotal evidence that bad information is being presented.

The evidence I presented is Project ChildSafe (plenty of info in my previous post). This program provides cables locks through local police departments. The cable locks have been independently tested and proven to be negligent. Would you accept anecdotal evidence if I go to my local police department, get a half dozen, and then defeat them all on film as shown in the engadget article I link?

You have local police peddling the locks. You have the seal of the Department of Justice and the National Shooting Sports Foundation on the program and thus implicitly on the locks and on the fliers themselves. The fliers which say to get a lock bock because it, and I quote, "Provides secure storage for loaded or unloaded firearm."

Well, they are secure if you have a toddler maybe. But as is demonstrated at DefCon, they are not secure to anyone who even remotely tries to get in them.

Oh and BTW, I never stated that I was for any form of law restricting a doctor from asking about guns in the home. The fact is, I am against such a law. I merely said it was stupid for doctors to do so because they are in general not going to be educated to properly inform.

Why do you insist upon telling a half truth? You certainly cannot say that my position here was unclear because my only criticism has been about doctors attempting to educate. Had you really, truly wanted to know my position on the law you could have just asked rather than assume and incorrectly.

It _may_ be. So far, all I have is your assertion that this is true along with some anecdotes about how certain trigger locks can be bypassed. If you can show me statistics that demonstrate higher accident rates with houses that have crappy trigger locks, I could be convinced.

I have seen statistics that show trigger locks decrease accident rates, but of course the data doesn't distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' locks.

If you claim the material they are presenting is 'worse than doing nothing'. First, show this is true with numbers.

I wouldn't even now where to begin to look as the efforts to prove the lack of quality of trigger and cable locks is very thin. It's going to take a long, uphill battle to get this into the public's conscience.

Quote:

Second, point the blame at agencies who should be educating doctors better, and demanding better equipment from the manufacturers. This happens with things like cribs, strollers, and car seats all of the time. Why should manufacturers of gun safety supplies be treated differently?

I am. I am very critical of the DoJ for more than just this. I don't know anything about the NSSF so can't say much there yet. I'll be sending them a letter, though, as well. Further, I do expect better from manufacturers. I'll be doing some digging and intend to post info here for whomever else wants to send nasty-grams. I'm contemplating "testing" the one that came with my Glock and sending it back to them destroyed to prove the point as well.

I stopped participating in this tangent because arguing that doctors are essentially going to give advice found at the bottom of a cereal box, and thus presents a threat that must be prevented by law, is barely worth acknowledging. Since you're still clinging to this fear, do you have an actual example of doctors teaching bad security?

It's not fear. It is completely rational to expect that doctors are not experts on the subject. Therefore, they are going to rely on others to supplement their knowledge....Well, they are secure if you have a toddler maybe. But as is demonstrated at DefCon, they are not secure to anyone who even remotely tries to get in them.

emph mine.

Well, right. Do you think pediatricians are giving advice on grown-ass adults?

Are you shitting your pants similarly because "child-proof" medicine caps and outlet protectors can be defeated pretty easily by a 35-year old?

Quote:

Oh and BTW, I never stated that I was for any form of law restricting a doctor from asking about guns in the home. The fact is, I am against such a law. I merely said it was stupid for doctors to do so because they are in general not going to be educated to properly inform.

Why do you insist upon telling a half truth? You certainly cannot say that my position here was unclear because my only criticism has been about doctors attempting to educate. Had you really, truly wanted to know my position on the law you could have just asked rather than assume and incorrectly.

Perhaps I did presume, based on your unreasonable posts here and previously in this thread linked from M. Jones, that you were supporting laws preventing doctors from asking these questions even when medically or professionally relevant. To the extent that I misunderstood your support of every inane position against doctors doing their jobs as support of a preventative law, mea culpa.

Perhaps I did presume, based on your unreasonable posts here and previously in this thread linked from M. Jones, that you were supporting laws preventing doctors from asking these questions even when medically or professionally relevant. To the extent that I misunderstood your support of every inane position against doctors doing their jobs as support of a preventative law, mea culpa.

Personally, I don't have any problem with their asking the questions as long as there is no penalty (legal) for my either refusing to answer or lying to them. Obviously, if I lie about symptoms (or something else like something that's in my home) that result in something that could have been prevented (or lessened) had I been truthful then that's not the doctor's problem.

I stopped participating in this tangent because arguing that doctors are essentially going to give advice found at the bottom of a cereal box, and thus presents a threat that must be prevented by law, is barely worth acknowledging. Since you're still clinging to this fear, do you have an actual example of doctors teaching bad security?

It's not fear. It is completely rational to expect that doctors are not experts on the subject. Therefore, they are going to rely on others to supplement their knowledge....Well, they are secure if you have a toddler maybe. But as is demonstrated at DefCon, they are not secure to anyone who even remotely tries to get in them.

emph mine.

Well, right. Do you think pediatricians are giving advice on grown-ass adults?

Are you shitting your pants similarly because "child-proof" medicine caps and outlet protectors can be defeated pretty easily by a 35-year old?

...as MightySpoon is trying to point out, pediatricians are mostly concerned with people under the age of 12.

Given the 40 unintentional deaths by firearms for that age group in the most recent year statistics are available (with no details if it was child access to the guns or if it was an adult who accidentally shot and killed someone in that age group)... Really? There are much bigger fish for them to fry, even if they can show all 40 cases being children that defeated child locks and offed themselves (which I highly doubt, but no way to find out.)

...as MightySpoon is trying to point out, pediatricians are mostly concerned with people under the age of 12.

Given the 40 unintentional deaths by firearms for that age group in the most recent year statistics are available (with no details if it was child access to the guns or if it was an adult who accidentally shot and killed someone in that age group)... Really? There are much bigger fish for them to fry, even if they can show all 40 cases being children that defeated child locks and offed themselves (which I highly doubt, but no way to find out.)

Societies are capable of addressing more than one thing at time. I doubt there is much opportunity cost in the process about asking patients about home firearm safety.

Well, right. Do you think pediatricians are giving advice on grown-ass adults?

Are you shitting your pants similarly because "child-proof" medicine caps and outlet protectors can be defeated pretty easily by a 35-year old?

No, but you are acting pretty immature over something that you should be educated on. Pediatrician practice isn't limited to toddlers. The pediatrician's office that we take our children to sees dependents until college age. I'll wager they are a) not the only ones who do so; b) are not in the minority. Wikipedia would appear to agree with me stating specifically that pediatrics deals with infants, children and adolescents. With adolescents being defined by them as "teen agers."

So, we now have a full-blow assertion that pediatricians in general deal with teen-agers. The same teen-agers who can easily defeat trigger locks. The same trigger locks that are being recommended, in ignorance, by police departments and pediatricians. So yes, there is bad advice being given in circumstances in which children might be placed in further danger.

Anecdotal evidence: I had no idea just how lousy trigger and cable locks were until I started digging for this discussion. This discussion has caused me to re-evaluate my gun security at home since I have a lot of guns and a lot of kids.

Quote:

Perhaps I did presume, based on your unreasonable posts here and previously in this thread linked from M. Jones, that you were supporting laws preventing doctors from asking these questions even when medically or professionally relevant. To the extent that I misunderstood your support of every inane position against doctors doing their jobs as support of a preventative law, mea culpa.

Apology accepted.

And to clarify my position... I don't think a doctor is doing his job asking about firearms in the home unless he has taken the time to educate himself fully in order to provide good advice. If he is lacking sound knowledge he should keep his mouth shut. No different than not asking a cardiologist about a mole on my back or an ENT about foot fungus. I assert that in cases where a doctor isn't informed then the doctor asking isn't medically relevant because he isn't qualified to reasonably analyze the situation.

Further, I am absolutely for the right to refuse to answer any line of questioning from a doctor about gun ownership. As for punishment for the doctor who refuses service because someone won't answer, well, that is a different matter that I have not fully concluded on yet. I'm inclined to say that withdrawing my patronage with an explanation might be punishment enough.

And lastly, it is really poor business practice to use boilerplate patient consent forms without having a thorough understanding of the language contained therein. That is completely and absolutely the fault of any doctors in question and I have no qualms about raking them over the coals for it.

Edit:

MightySpoon wrote:

Arguably, safety is a multistage process and not a single perfect solution.